Katherine Fuller watched consumers react differently to the same product depending on a single word. At Tufts University's Center for Cellular Agriculture, her research team tested how people responded to cell-based meat when it was called "cultivated" versus "lab-grown"—and the difference was striking enough to reshape how an entire industry might talk about its future.
The study, published in Food Quality & Preference and conducted across the United States and Germany, reveals something deceptively simple yet powerful: terminology shapes both whether people want to buy cultivated meat and how much they're willing to pay for it. Terms like "cultivated," "cultured," and "cellular" consistently won more consumer favor than the clunky "lab-grown," which tends to dampen appeal and reduce market potential. It's a finding that matters because naming is often the first encounter consumers have with a new product—the words get there before the taste does.
What makes this research particularly compelling is that it works the same way in two very different food cultures. The U.S. and German samples both showed the same naming preferences, suggesting this isn't about regional quirks or national attitudes. Instead, Fuller and her team—including Sean Cash, chair of the Division of Agriculture, Food and Environment at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy—found evidence of deeper cognitive patterns that cross borders.
But the study also found important nuance. Not everyone responds to naming in the same way. Consumer characteristics matter enormously. People who are naturally more open to trying new foods and who trust food system institutions respond more strongly to terminology shifts than those who are skeptical or cautious by nature. This "food neophobia"—the tendency to hesitate before trying unfamiliar foods—was particularly telling. Consumers with higher food neophobia remained reluctant to choose cell-cultivated meat products regardless of what they were called, suggesting that concerns about the product itself run deeper than any marketing spin.
The implications ripple through the industry and regulatory landscape. Companies and regulators already know that language matters; the plant-based sector learned this long ago, discovering that "plant-based milk" lands differently with consumers than "almond beverage." Fuller's work provides concrete evidence that cell agriculture needs similar strategic thinking. How these products are named on shelves, in ads, and in policy documents could meaningfully influence whether this emerging food technology achieves mainstream acceptance or remains niche.
Fuller, who is now on faculty at Oregon State University but held a postdoctoral position at Tufts's Friedman School during much of this research, sees the findings as a bridge between science and real-world communication. "Naming is often one of the first pieces of information consumers encounter," she explained, "so terminology can shape initial perceptions before people have direct experience with the product." That insight—that words arrive first, before taste or nutrition or ethics—suggests that getting the language right isn't trivial. It's foundational.
For an industry trying to convince the world that food grown in bioreactors rather than fields is safe, sustainable, and worth trying, these findings offer a practical first step. Call it cultivated. Make it sound intentional, scientific, thoughtful. Because sometimes the difference between acceptance and skepticism is simply what you call the thing in the first place.